Friday, October 06, 2017

Fastiggi & Goldstein reply: I respond

Robert Fastiggi and Dawn Eden Goldstein have
done me the honour of a reply, at some length, to my post, in my comments
box. I want to take this as seriously as possible, so I paste it in below, in full, in
bold, with my replies to each point.

Dear Dr. Shaw,

Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein and I wish to thank you
for your tone of civility. We hope to reply with equal civility regarding your
post: “A Challenge for Fastiggi and Goldstein.”

Thank you.

Our points of response are the following:

1. You are correct that “impressions” are subjective. Our point, however, is that
your subjective impressions regarding papal words and actions are not shared by
all. In justice there is always a need to determine what people mean before
making judgments of potential heresy. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith examines cases of possible heresy, it follows strict norms of
procedure in order to insure justice for the one accused (See CDF, Regulations
for Doctrinal Examination, Ratio Agendi May 30, 1997; AAS 89 [1997] 830–835).
If so much care is given to the examination of individual theologians before
making judgments of heresy, should not the same be extended to the Roman
Pontiff? Canon law tells us: “The First See is judged by no one” (CIC [1983] canon 1404).

Certainly the Pope deserves the chance to clarify what exactly
he means, in the context of disagreement about what that may be. That is why
many people, including the ‘Four Cardinals’, have been respectfully but
urgently asking Pope Francis for such a clarification: as you know they wrote
to him in September 2016, more than a year ago. He has not responded
formally, but meanwhile many of his supporters have been telling us that
various informal responses are clear enough, and have criticised strongly those
unwilling to allow their interpretation of Amoris to be guided by these
informal indications. In any case, other people have been guided by them, and
Pope Francis has not intervened to put them right.

The Correctio makes it very clear that we are not judging the Pope or accusing him of the sin of heresy.

2. You object to the word “mostly” when we say
that your claim of Pope Francis not wanting orthodoxy is derived “mostly [from]
non-authoritative statements of the Pope” and not, as you assert, “entirely
[from] non-authoritative statements.” Mostly is correct because, in addition to
citing references to non-authoritative sources, the Correctio filialis speaks
of “the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris
laetitia and by other words, deeds, and omissions of Your Holiness.” As a papal
exhortation, Amoris laetitia would carry the same authority of the ordinary
papal Magisterium as St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio of 1981.

Documents emanating from the Holy See or
General Councils can contain both Magisterial and non-Magisterial statements. Non-Magisterial
statements would include, obviously, those not concerning faith and morals,
such as historical claims. They also include statements which are unclear: there
can be no obligation on Catholics to believe a statement if they cannot
determine what the statement means. Yet another category of non-Magisterial
statements in official documents are those which go beyond or against the
Ordinary Magisterium.

An example of this last case which is not
controversial is the claim of the Council of Florence-Ferrara that the sacramental
‘matter’ in priestly ordination is not the laying-on of hands, but the handing
over of the chalice. We commonly say that statements of General Councils other
than anathemas have non-infallible teaching authority from the Ordinary
Magisterium. In such a case, however, it would be more accurate to say that
this statement is not a statement of the Ordinary Magisterium at all, since it
contradicts the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium cannot
contradict itself.

The contention of the Correctio Filialis is
that the statements of Amoris which concern
us are ambiguous: they can be read in accordance with the Ordinary Magisterium,
which we would obviously accept, or they can be read as contradicting the
Ordinary Magisterium. Those who insist on the latter possibility cannot, of
course, simultaneously claim that they are examples
of the Ordinary Magisterium and are therefore binding. You can’t be bound, by the Ordinary Magisterium, to reject the Ordinary Magisterium.

3. You mention the private letter of Pope Francis to the
Bishops of Buenos Aires as an example of something that is “impossible to
square with the constant teaching of the Church.” Cardinal Müller, however, in his Sept. 28 National
Catholic Register interview with Edward Pentin, said: “[If] you look at what
the Argentine bishops wrote in their directive, you can interpret this in an
orthodox way” (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-mller-discusses-the-cdf-the-curia-and-amoris-laetitia).
What you consider “impossible” to square
with orthodoxy, others find possible.

That no-one
disagrees with me is not part of what I am claiming. It would be interesting,
though hardly decisive, to know what Cardinal Müller thinks of the guidelines of
the Bishops of Malta, which seem to go beyond those of the bishops of Buenos
Aires, in clearly contradicting Canon 915.

4. You ask what we would do if we thought the pope of the day
were indicating non-authoritatively that bishops and ordinary Catholics should
act and believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church? This is
something purely hypothetical. Neither of us believe Pope Francis is asking
people to act or believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church. If,
though, we thought we were facing such a situation, we would make our concerns
known to our Ordinary first and then, if need be, to the papal Nuncio or the
Holy See. We would not have recourse to the mass media.

We and many others
who have had concerns over Amoris and
its interpretations have gone to considerable trouble to go through the proper channels.
Grouping together to compose and sign a joint statement is an obvious way to maximise
the ‘knowledge, competence and position’ mentioned in Canon 212 in relation to
appeals by the Faithful; it would also be impractical to expect the Holy See to
respond to hundreds of individual petitions. Being an international group
means that we do not have a single Ordinary or indeed a single Papal Nuncio.
There is nothing in Canon Law which prohibits us from appealing directly to the
Pope, but as a matter of fact many of us first appealed to the College of
Cardinals, a year ago. Finally, we did not ‘have recourse to the mass media’
until six weeks had passed, without response, since our petition was given
personally to the Holy Father.

Ruling out ‘recourse
to the mass media’ in all circumstances clearly contradicts Canon 212 which
notes that it can be an obligation to make concerns known to ‘others of
Christ's faithful’, and is therefore ruled out as a sensible reading of Donum veritatis, from which you take the
phrase.

I would suggest
that were you facing that situation, and were you to respond as you suggest,
you could very well find yourselves failing to discharge the duty which Canon
212 mentions, to make your concerns known to other members of the Faithful. For myself, I feel subjectively obliged to act because it seems
clear to me that, given the knowledge, competence and position of my fellow
signatories, and given that bishops and the Holy Father are not (or not all) acting
to defend the Magisterium, we can and must warn the Faithful about a proximate danger
to the Faith.

5. Your point about Donum veritatis referring to theologians
who reject the ordinary Magisterium begs the question because you have not
established that Pope Francis is going against any teaching of the Magisterium.
You cite canon 212§3, but you fail to mention that it also requires manifesting
opinions with reverence toward pastors and attention to “the common advantage
and the dignity of persons.” We question whether accusing Pope Francis of
propagating heresies is really showing reverence, and we question whether this
serves the common advantage of the Church and the dignity of persons. We also
do not believe that the Correctio follows the guidelines of Donum veritatis, as
we explained in our article.

The text of the
Correctio makes the case in detail, and with copious documentation, for the
view that, by his words, deeds, and omissions, Pope Francis is propagating views
contrary to the Magisterium. A bald denial by you is hardly an adequate
response.

We are very
aware of the requirement of Canon 212 (and of common sense) for reverence,
attention to the common advantage, and so on. Again, a bald assertion by you
that we have failed to do this is no argument.

You appear to
be missing what should be obvious, that we
believe that Pope Francis is doing what we claim he is doing. Given our
subjective position, what is it we are obliged to do, in conscience, and how
should we go about it? It is not an act of reverence or affection to fail to point out grave and urgent
problems in a Pope’s government of the Church: to fail in this way is to act as
a timeserving courtier, not a faithful member of the Mystical Body. Those who
love the Pope and respect his office should feel profoundly the duty to make
clear exactly how serious the problem is, however much what they say is
expressed in respectful terms, and however much they may wish to give the Pope
the chance to clarify his position privately and so on. I really cannot see how
the Correctio can be faulted on these grounds.

6. You mention that Matthew 18:15–17 allows for making
problems public when private admonitions fail. This text, though, advises
taking a brother to the Church for correction. It does not advise correcting
the head of the Church.

This seems a most
surprising reading of Matthew 18:15-17, in light of Galatians 2:11, in which St
Paul recalls how he ‘opposed’ St Peter, the Pope, ‘to his face’, and the
tradition of interpretation the latter text has had among the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church. The most famous example of this tradition of
interpretation is St Thomas Aquinas, who notes two other
scriptural passages:

Sir 4:27: ‘Reverence not thy neighbour in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation’Lev. 19:17: ‘Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him.’We could also add Ezekial 33:8: ‘If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.’

Aquinas
continues: ‘Apropos
of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as
an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of
authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have
an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain
corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an
example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates,
particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.’

7. Like you, we wish to affirm the teachings of the
infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. We are not questioning your
faith or sincerity; we are only questioning your methods.

Affirming the infallible Ordinary and Universal
Magisterium requires of Catholics that they not only live by it, but as God’s
honour and the good of their neighbours requires, witness to it publicly.

18 comments:

Excellent responses. I believe the Holy Ghost is actively working amongst those opposing the heresies & blasphemies being promulgated by this papacy that has done untold damage to His Church on earth. It cannot be long now before this Masonic/Marxist/Modernist faction in the CC is completely annihilated. They don't show any respect for God (His Commandments, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Sacraments) Our Lady (still no consecration of Russia) or Jesus. According to PF “having a personal relationship with Jesus is dangerous and very harmful“ @yournewswire.com. Keep up the good work.

"An example of this last case which is not controversial is the claim of the Council of Florence-Ferrara that the sacramental ‘matter’ in priestly ordination is not the laying-on of hands, but the handing over of the chalice. We commonly say that statements of General Councils other than anathemas have non-infallible teaching authority from the Ordinary Magisterium. In such a case, however, it would be more accurate to say that this statement is not a statement of the Ordinary Magisterium at all, since it contradicts the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium cannot contradict itself."***Erroneous. ***It is not that the XVII Ecumenical Council, The COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE (1438-1445)/ Pope Eugenius [Eugene IV] stated a non-infallible teaching, which is an impossibility for a valid council on matters of faith or morals, but because this matter pertained to what the Church in her authority can establish, change or abrogate, as Pope Pius XII explained when he made the change. Cf. http://disq.us/p/1ivnkns

This Council was not claiming to be establishing the truth of the question by a legislative act, it claimed to describe what had always been the case. It is evident in light of scholarship since the 15th century that it had not been the case that in earlier centuries the matter of the sacrament had always been the handing over of the chalice.

More examples of "You can't say anything against the Pope" rather than dealing with any of the substantive issues raised in the Correctio. It doesn't appear that they have read it through, just like it appears they are completely oblivious to what is going on.

Thank you for organizing the Correctio, Dr. Shaw - it is making a difference and will at least be a marker in history for those who will correct the errors later. As for the signatories being a lot of "marginal figures", and the effort being "of no significance" it sure is generating a lot of reaction.

We appreciate your attempt to respond to our seven points, but you argue in a way that concedes the main point we are making. In so many words, you acknowledge that all you can present is your subjective belief that Pope Francis is doing what you claim he is doing, viz., effecting the propagation of heresies in the Church. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but we find your accusations unjust and excessive. As we noted, even private theologians accused of heresy are entitled to the due process outlined in the CDF document, Ratio agendi of 1997. But you and your associates have accused the Roman Pontiff of facilitating the spread of heresies, and all you can present are some references, assertions, and subjective beliefs, which are all open to question. Because the Holy Father did not respond to your accusations submitted at first privately, you have taken it upon yourselves to make your accusations public via the mass media. Thus, you have publicly accused the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies.

We do not question your faith or your sincerity, and we are aware that you believe you are acting for the good of the Church. Nor do we dispute your rights under canon 212§3. What we do question, though, is whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity that bind all of the faithful. You say that our “bald assertion” that you have failed with respect to due reverence, etc. “is no argument.” But all you can counter with is your “bald assertion” that you have observed due reverence, common advantage and so on. This, though, actually supports our major point. You are using subjective impressions and interpretations to accuse the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies. The force of your argument is that you believe your impressions are true. This, though, will be convincing to those who share your impressions but not to those who don’t. It seems to us that you are arguing in a circle. Your impressions are true because you believe they are true. You admit that others disagree with your impressions, but this does not falsify your impressions because you believe they are true.

There are other points you bring up that we could challenge, such as your understanding of magisterial documents as well as your interpretations of Mt 18: 15–17 and Gal 2:11. These might be interesting discussions, but we would rather focus on the main point we have presented above. We know you can appeal to a few Cardinals, bishops, and theologians who have also raised questions about Amoris laetita and its applications. We, though, could counter with many other Cardinals, bishops, and theologians who have expressed appreciation for the exhortation and who agree with these words of Cardinal Müller:

"In Amoris Laetitia there’s no new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine, but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments. The only question is their pastoral application in extraordinary situations. The Pope will not and cannot change either the doctrine or the sacraments. What he wants is to help couples in very difficult circumstances as a good shepherd, but in accord with the word of God" (Interview with Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, Sept. 28, 2017).

We know you disagree with his Eminence in this analysis, and that is your privilege. Your disagreement, though, does not disprove what the good Cardinal says. We certainly accept the right of Catholics to raise questions and ask for clarifications from the Holy Father. We believe, however, that the accusations contained in the Correctio are excessive and based on subjective impressions that are highly questionable.

I think we are going round in circles at this point. Some brief rejoinders.

You say: 'In so many words, you acknowledge that all you can present is your subjective belief that Pope Francis is doing what you claim he is doing, viz., effecting the propagation of heresies in the Church.'

False. As I noted, we present at length a large amount of objective evidence, which you have and continue to decline to assess. I am getting the impression now of a small child with his fingers in his ears.

You say: 'What we do question, though, is whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity that bind all of the faithful. You say that our “bald assertion” that you have failed with respect to due reverence, etc. “is no argument.” But all you can counter with is your “bald assertion” that you have observed due reverence, common advantage and so on.'

False, also. If you criticise our act, it is for you to bring forward reasons and evidence to back up your criticism, not for us to answer an argument against it which has not been made. (How are we supposed to do that, anyway?)

As for your quotation of Cardinal Müller, I agree with every word of it. Your conception of our position clearly needs a little refining.

According to us, the Pope is doing something which Cardinal Müller is far too polite even to consider, at least publicly: inviting Bishops and the faithful to *ignore* and *act contrary to* doctrine and sacramental discipline. Pope Francis does so, I am sure, in order to help people in difficult situations.

Thank you very much for your latest reply. We are delighted that you agree with Cardinal Müller that Amoris laetitia has “no new doctrine … but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments.”

We wonder why, then, you include twelve passages of Amoris laetitia in the Correctio, which you say— “in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions” of the Holy Father— “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” We also wonder why you mention—in the first paragraph of the Correctio—the propagation of heresies “effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds, and omissions of Your Holiness.”

If the propagation of heresies is, in part, “effected” by Amoris laetitia, then it would seem that the papal exhortation is a cause for the dissemination of heresies. But if you agree with Cardinal Müller’s assessment of the exhortation, then you should revise the Correctio and omit any mention of Amoris laetitia as a cause for the spread of heresies.

We also note that you believe “the Pope is doing something which Cardinal Müller is far too polite to even consider, at least publicly: inviting Bishops and the faithful to ignore and act contrary to doctrine and sacramental discipline.” In effect, you are saying that you are reading into Pope Francis something subjective that others such as Cardinal Müller do not see. This only proves the point we made in our last reply. You are relying on subjective impressions that you believe are superior to the impressions of others.

You say you have “[presented] at length a large amount of objective evidence” which we have continued to decline to assess. It would take a much longer response to show how each one of your cases of “objective evidence” allows for a more benign interpretation. Moreover, your accusations are directed against Pope Francis, not us, so it would not be appropriate or possible for us to speak for the Holy Father in terms of his intentions regarding each of the statements, deeds, and omissions you bring forth as “evidence.”

You complain that we have not supplied adequate reasons why we question whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity—and this despite the arguments we put forth in our La Stampa article “Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger’s rules for faithful theological discourse” and our subsequent responses to you. It seems that you missed our point. Those who are accused of spreading heresies are entitled, in justice, to due process and a fair hearing. You, though, have publicly accused the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies based on evidence that is colored by subjective impressions.

We know you believe you are acting for the good of the Church. That is why we respectfully urge you to consider the harm your actions can cause to the reputation of the Holy Father and ecclesial communion.

Let us trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church and pray for Pope Francis.

'We wonder why, then, you include twelve passages of Amoris laetitia in the Correctio, which you say— “in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions” of the Holy Father— “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” '

Because that is the case. This really isn't so difficult: AL could be read in an orthodox sense, but the interpretation being given it doesn't allow it. I think I've said that often enough now.

As to the Pope's intentions, these are the intentions being imputed to him by his *supporters*, such as the bishops of Malta, and he is not correcting them. It is enough for us to say that what he is doing is an invitation, without seeking to judge what exactly he intends, since we are not in a position to judge that.

It seems you are now admitting that we have presented a large amount of object evidence which you have not even addressed, let alone refuted, so thank you.

I and others have already addressed your La Stampa arguments.

I think we've both said enough to allow our readers to make their own minds up.

I think subjectivity is part and parcel of this whole question, and that's precisely the problem.

The Holy Father has conducted himself in such a way that members of the hierarchy and of the faithful are forming radically opposed subjective judgements about a controversial and important matter concerning authoritative Catholic teachings.

That in itself would be a serious problem. It is made more severe by the fact that the Holy Father seems, on the face of it, to be at least tacitly favouring the heterodox interpretation over the orthodox one, thus allowing heterodox interpreters to claim Papal support.

This is precisely the kind of scenario in which the Pope ought to resolve the controversy so as to ensure unity within the Church. Pope Francis's failure to do so, despite repeated requests, seems to this laymen at least to represent a clear threat to the unity of the Church.

The problem is precisely that different subjective judgements are in conflict, so it is no solution to say that unproblematic subjective judgements remain possible, and leave it at that.

I don't often agree with that old lefty liberal Damian Thompson, but his comments on the Correction are entirely appropriate:

"It’s boring, and the list of signatories is unimpressive and badly judged. Who thought it was a good idea to ask the head of the SSPX to sign? Talk about playing into the hands of liberals who want to portray all orthodox Catholics as crypto-Lefebvrists."

If ever there were any doubt that DT's intellect lacked analytical power, what he just said proved it. Why is he so svared of the SSPX. Is he scared of being prosecuted for heresy or something if there is a restoration, the old twit??

If ever there were any doubt that DT's intellect lacked analytical power, what he just said proved it. Why is he so svared of the SSPX. Is he scared of being prosecuted for heresy or something if there is a restoration, the old twit??